- Email: [email protected]
Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015
ARTICLE IN PRESS Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Sport and Health Science xxx (2019) xxx-xxx www.jshs.org.cn 1
53
Review
54
2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1
Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015
55
25X XMill XD an Aguilar-Navarro D26X X , D27X XJes us Mu~ noz-Guerra D28X X , D29X XMarıa del Mar Plata D30X X , D31X XJuan Del Coso D32X X *
58
a,b
c
d
a,
a
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Camilo Jos e Cela University, Madrid, 28692, Spain b Faculty of Education, Francisco de Vitoria University, Madrid, 28223, Spain c Department for Doping Control, Spanish Agency for Health Protection in Sport, Madrid, 28016, Spain d Department of Education, Spanish Agency for Health Protection in Sport, Madrid, 28016, Spain
8 9 10 11
Received 21 November 2018; revised 27 February 2019; accepted 2 April 2019 Available online xxx
12
56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64
13
65
14
66
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
67
Abstract
68
Background: Determining the prevalence of doping in sport might be useful for anti-doping authorities to gauge the effectiveness of anti-doping policies implemented to prevent positive attitudes toward doping. Using questionnaires and personal interviews, previous investigations have found that the prevalence of doping might be different among different sports disciplines; however, there is no sport-specific information about the proportion of adverse and atypical findings (AAF) in samples used for doping control. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the differences in the frequency of adverse analytical and atypical findings among sports using the data made available by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Methods: The data included in this investigation were gathered from the Testing Figures Reports made available annually from 2003 to 2015 by the World Anti-Doping Agency. These Testing Figures Reports include information about the number of samples analyzed, the number of AAFs reported, and the most commonly found drugs in the urine and blood samples analyzed. A total of 1,347,213 samples were analyzed from the individual sports selected for this investigation, and 698,371 samples were analyzed for disciplines catalogued as team sports. Results: In individual sports, the highest proportions of AAF were 3.3% § 1.0% in cycling, 3.0% § 0.6% in weightlifting and 2.9% § 0.6% in boxing. In team sports, the highest proportions of AAF were 2.2% § 0.5% in ice hockey, 2.0% § 0.5% in rugby, and 2.0% § 0.5% in basketball. Gymnastics and skating had the lowest proportions at 1.0%) for individual sports, and field hockey, volleyball and football had the lowest proportions for team sports (<1.5%). Conclusion: As suggested by the analysis, the incidence of AAF was not uniform across all sports disciplines, with the different proportions pointing to an uneven use of banned substances depending on the sport. This information might be useful for increasing the strength and efficacy of anti-doping policies in those sports with the highest prevalence in the use of banned substances. 2095-2546/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
69
Keywords: Anti-doping; Attitude; Banned drugs; Elite athlete; Type of sport
86
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
35
87
36
88 89
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
1. Introduction Since the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999, there has been a strong anti-doping movement across sports organizations and governmental authorities, with the main objective being to reduce the prevalence and incidence of doping in sports.1 Although several important steps in this direction have been taken in the past 20 years, this objective is far from being fully achieved because at present
47 48 49 50 51 52
Peer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Del Coso).
the use of banned substances by elite athletes from different sports disciplines is a certainty.24 Some flaws in the current anti-doping system, including the low deterrent effect of the punishment established for athletes sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation, the inclusion of substances on the banned list without proper scrutiny of their effects on physical performance, and the imperfections in the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) protocol, may have contributed to the relatively low efficacy of anti-doping policies.5 Determining the prevalence of doping in sport is important for all the entities involved in sports organizations; however, an assessment of the prevalence and the changes in the incidence of doping is particularly crucial for anti-doping authorities to
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005 Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161
gauge the effectiveness of their anti-doping policies and the utility of the social and economic investment made to prevent positive attitudes toward doping. Even though it is impractical to identify the exact prevalence and incidence of doping in sport, various analyses have shown that intentional doping occurs in 14%57% of the population of competitive athletes.69 Some of these investigations have used surveys based on the D36X Xrandomized response technique, which allows the athlete to maintain anonymity while answering questions about doping practices. However, the accuracy of these survey-based investigations is limited by the necessity for truthfulness,10 objectivity, and the necessity that athletes’ have an accurate knowledge of what is a doping misconduct.11 According to the results of doping control tests, it has been revealed that the percentage of samples containing banned substances has remained relatively stable at approximately D37X X2.0% both before6 and after12 the creation of WADA, a lower proportion than the one found in investigations based on personal input.11 The assessment of the prevalence and incidence of doping in sport using the results of doping tests is an objective and robust method, but it suffers from the limitations of the small detection window that exists for specific prohibited substances,13 the analytical capability of WADA-accredited laboratories at the time of analysis, and an inability to discern the legal use of prohibited substances for therapeutic purposes from the intentional use of banned substances to obtain a competitive advantage. To date, most of the strategies implemented to fight against doping have failed to consider the particularities of each sport discipline in terms of doping misconduct (prevalence and seasonal variations in the use of banned substances, the substances consumed and methods most used to consume them, and so forth). Determining the prevalence of doping practices and recognizing the differing attitudes that exist toward doping in various sports can aid in the management and implementation of plans for doping control tests in each sports discipline. It is likely that the use of anti-doping policies specifically designed to address the characteristics of doping misconduct in each sport can improve the effectiveness of current anti-doping strategies. However, the information needed to understand the differences in the prevalence of and attitudes toward doping among various sports is scarce, making it difficult to draw conclusions about which anti-doping measures to use. A few investigations have assessed the prevalence of doping in one or various sports, but the methods used to assess the prevalence of doping are diverse and hinder an objective comparison among sports. Doping in athletics, as measured by surveys, might be up to 57%.7 In addition, track and field athlete’s nationality might be one of the major factors affecting prevalence of doping in this sport,14 suggesting the existence of contrasting attitudes toward doping between countries. Likewise, the incidence of doping may be high in cycling D38X Xbecause the use of doping agents was admitted by a high proportion of cyclists that D39X Xcompleted a questionnaire about the use of doping agents in the past 3 months.15 However, not all the investigations confirm this high prevalence of doping in cycling.16 In contrast, all the players in the 32 football teams classified for the Brazil 2014 World Cup were tested for
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
doping control out of competition and there was not any case of intentional doping in the more than 1D40X X000 samples analyzed.17 It has also been found18 that offers to use banned substances are received most often by speed and power athletes, followed by endurance athletes, then by participants in sports that require motor skills, and then by participants in team sports. However, athletes rarely admit the use of banned substances despite the ease with which they can obtain doping agents.18 These findings coincide with findings from other investigations that have reported that participants in individual sports were more prone to be involved in doping than participants in team sports.19 Furthermore, athletes D41X Xpracticing individual sports that require motor skills are less likely to be involved in doping practices than athletes practicing D42X X more physically D43X Xoriented individual sports.4 Finally, track and field athletes, cyclists, and weightlifters had a higher knowledge of anti-doping rule violations than their counterparts in other Olympic sports.20 Taken together, previous research suggests that differences exist among various sports in the prevalence of doping and in athletes’ attitudes toward doping. Because data haveD4X X been gathered for only a few sports, an objective comparison of the prevalence/incidence of doping in various sports disciplines has not been possible. Thus, the aim of the present investigation was to D45X Xanalyze the frequency of and atypical findings reported by WADA-accredited laboratories from 2003 to 2015 to assess the differences in the incidence of doping in various sports.
162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189
2. Methods The data included in this investigation were gathered from the Testing Figures Reports made available annually from 2003 to 2015 by WADA. These Testing Figures Reports can be accessed from the WADA website, and they include information about the number of samples analyzed, the number of adverse and atypical findings (AAF) reported, and the most commonly found drugs in the urine and blood samples analyzed.21 The percentage of AAF was calculated for each sport as described D46X X herein. To determine the presence of a prohibited substance or its main metabolites or markers in athletes participating in both Olympic and non-Olympic sports from 2003 to 2015, WADAaccredited laboratories analyzed a total of 3,103,974 samples. The current investigation presents an ad hoc analysis of the samples for 17 individual sports (aD47X Xquatics, aD48X Xthletics, bD49X Xoxing, cD50X Xanoe/ kD51X Xayaking, cD52X Xycling, fD53X Xencing, gDymnastics, 54X X jD5X Xudo, rD56X Xowing, sD57X Xhooting, sD58X Xkiing, sD59X Xkating, tD60X Xaekwondo, tD61X Xennis, tD62X Xriathlon, wD63X Xeightlifting, and wD64X Xrestling) and 7 team sports (bD65X Xasketball, fD6X Xootball, hD67X Xandball, fD68X Xield hD69X Xockey, iD70X Xce hD71X Xockey, rD72X Xugby, and vD73X Xolleyball). All these sports were part of the Olympic programD74X X during the analyzed period. (Information on rD75X Xugby was available only from 2012 to 2015). For this investigation, only complex team sports were labelled as “team sports,”D76X X while other individual disciplines that have collective events (known as simple and aggregated team sports, including athletics, swimming, cycling, rowing, etc)22 remained labelled as individual sports because most of the samples analyzed came from the individual disciplines. The grouping of individual and team sports in the current analysis only responds
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
to the intention of creating a more comprehensible manuscript, D7X Xbecause some individual and team sports share physical, physiological, and sociodemographic characteristics. Because it was impractical to analyze all the sports (D78X X>100) included in the WADA reports, theseD79X X individual and team sports were selected because they accounted for at least 1D80X X000 samples per year in all the years examined. The Testing Figures Reports have evolved from 2003 to 2015 and have presented more information about doping every year. However, we have used the data from 2003 as the basis for the analysis. In the reports from 2003 to 2007, 2 types of non-negative results were merged: (a) adverse analytical findings (when the laboratory detected in the athlete’s sample a substance and/or a marker and/or a metabolite of the substance that was included in the list of prohibited substances) and (b) atypical findings (when the parameters measured by the laboratory showed a discrepancy with the previous results for the same athlete). Notably, the analyses did not include information about D81X XTUE; thus, D82X XAAFD83X X did not necessarily end in anti-doping rule violations. The information on the number of samples obtained in competition and out of competition and the number of AAF have been analyzed using the reports from 2012 to 2015, because this information was not included in the previous reports. Finally, the blood samples collected for the Athlete’s Biological Passport were not included in our analysis because this type of sample had not been obtained during the entire period from 2003 to 2015.
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
2.1. Statistical analysis The data were electronically extracted from the Testing Figures Reports and entered into a database designed for the purposes of this research. The data were extracted by one author (MAN) using a spreadsheet (Excel 2016, Microsoft Office, WA, USA) and then they were checked for accuracy by another author (JDC). Subsequently, the mean § standard deviationD84X X for each Olympic sport (individual or team) was calculated for span of years investigated (20032015). The normality of each variable was initially analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. A D85X X1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences in the number of samples analyzed and in the frequency of AAF among sports. After a F significant test (inter-groups and intra-groups degrees of freedom), the Bonferroni post hoc analysis was used D86X X to identify differences among individual sports and among team sports in these variables. The differences in the distribution of samples and the percentage of AAF between in-competition and out-of-competition settings were tested with crosstab and x2D87X X tests, including adjusted D8X Xstandardized residuals. Briefly, a sport that had a distribution of samples or percentage of AAF was considered to be statistically different from expected when its distribution of samples/findings in-competition and out-of-competition was D89X Xgreater than or D90X Xless than the critical value of Z (i.e., 1.96). The data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05.
3
3. Results
276
A total of 1,347,213 samples were analyzed from the individual sports selected for this investigation from 2003 to 2015, with an overall frequency of AAF of 1.6% § 0.9%. In the team sports examined, the number of samples analyzed during this period was 698,371, with the overall frequency of AAF (1.7% § 0.6%) being similar to individual sports. Table 1 depicts the average number of samples analyzed per year in all individual sports (F(16, 204) = 218.1; p(ANOVA) < 0.001). Athletics was the individual sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples being available than the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Cycling ranked second among the second individual sport in the number of samples analyzed per year and had higher values for AAFD91X X than all the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Aquatics and weightlifting also had a higher number of samples analyzed per year than the remaining individuals sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Table 1 contains the number of AAF per sport from 2003 to 2015. In
277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
Table 1 Number of samples analyzed, number and percentage of AAF in individual and team sports between 2003 and 2015 (mean § standard deviationD). 19X X D20X X Sport Individual sports Cycling Weightlifting Boxing Triathlon Wrestling Athletics Judo Skiing Taekwondo Tennis Canoe/kayaking Fencing Aquatics Rowing Shooting Gymnastics Skating Team sports Ice Hockey Rugby Basketball Handball Field hDockey 23X X Volleyball Football
Samples (nD)21X X
AAF (nD)2X X
AAF (%)
18,371 § 4018 7440 § 1491$ 3303 § 892* 3069 § 921* 4136 § 1032* 24,132 § 3516$ 3820 § 752* 4801 § 989* 1579 § 332*,z 3345 § 686* 3559 § 717* 1836 § 187* 12,010 § 1539$ 4082 § 865* 2427 § 469* 2224 § 316* 3496 § 702*
572 § 128 227 § 75 92 § 21 61 § 25 78 § 33 379 § 96 54 § 27 65 § 23 21 § 7 40 § 13 45 § 18 22 § 11 § 44 44 § 19 26 § 26 23 § 10 32 § 18
3.3 § 1.0 3.0 § 0.6 2.9 § 0.6 2.1 § 0.8*,y,z 1.8 § 0.5*,y,z 1.6 § 0.3*,y,z 1.4 § 0.6*,y,z 1.4 § 0.5*,y,z 1.3 § 0.5*,y,z 1.3 § 0.6*,y,z 1.3 § 0.5*,y,z 1.2 § 0.5*,y,z 1.1 § 0.3*,y,z 1.1 § 0.4*,y,z 1.1 § 0.4*,y,z 1.0 § 0.4*,y,z 0.9 § 0.5
4004 § 1187 5555 § 1646 6951 § 2457& 3255 § 720# 1723 § 383x# 4194 § 948# 28,039 § 4143$
89 § 34 115 § 53 147 § 87 53 § 16 25 § 14 55 § 20 352 § 121
2.2 § 0.5 2.0 § 0.5 2.0 § 0.5 1.6 § 0.5 1.4 § 0.6&,x 1.3 § 0.4&,x# 1.2 § 0.3&,x#
* Different from cycling. y Different from weightlifting. z Different from boxing. # Different from basketball. & Different from ice hockey. x Different from rugby. $ Different from all the remaining sports within the same category. D24XAbbreviation: X AAF = adverse and atypical finding.
298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
275
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389
absolute values, cycling, athletics, and weightlifting were the sports with the highest number of non-negative results. Table 1 also contains the average § D92X Xstandard deviation in the proportion of AAFD93X X in individual sports, which eliminates the influence of the differences in the number of samples analyzed in each individual sport (F(16, 204) = 24.6; p(ANOVA) < 0.001). Cycling, weightlifting, and boxing were the individual sports with the highest proportion of AAF, with the percentages being greater than the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Aquatics, rowing, shooting, gymnastics, and skating had the lowest proportion of AAF in the years studied, and their values were also lower than the proportions of AAFD94X X found in triathlon and wrestling (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Table 1 presents information on the average number of samples analyzed (F (6, 84) = 262.7; p(ANOVA) < 0.001) in team sports. Football was the team sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples than the remaining team sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Basketball ranked second in team sports in the number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples than volleyball, ice hockey, handball, and field hockey (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Football, basketball, and rugby were the team sports with the highest number of AAF. However, ice hockey and rugby were the team sports with the highest proportion of AAF (F (6, 84) = 8.1; p (ANOVA) < 0.001), with higher proportions than field hockey, volleyball, and football (p < 0.05 in all pairwise comparisons). Basketball also had a higher proportion of AAFD95X X than volleyball (p = 0.01) and football (p = 0.01). Fig. 1 presents information about the number of samples analyzed per year in each sport. Overall, all sports tended to have an increase in the number of samples analyzed per year from 2003 to 2015. In addition, most of the sports had the largest number of samples analyzed per year in 2015. Fig. 2 shows the changes in the percentage of AAF per year within each sport. Despite the increase in the number of samples analyzed each year, there was not a clear tendency for a higher prevalence of AAF with time. In fact, some sports, such as cycling, boxing, and triathlon, showed a progressive D96X Xdecrease in the percentage of AAFD97X X from 2003 to 2015. In individual sports, the overall proportion of samples obtained in competition was 53.1% § 3.3%, while the remaining 46.9% § 3.3% were obtained out of competition. Skiing, tennis, rowing, and shooting had unexpected distributions for the samples obtained in competition and out of competition (Fig. 3A, p < 0.05). In individual sports, the proportion of AAF in samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition was 67.8% § 8.7% and 32.2% § 8.7%, respectively. In this case, the distributions for the AAF in completion and of competition were different from those expected in triathlon, canoeing, fencing, rowing and shooting (Fig. 3B, p < 0.05). In team sports, the overall proportion of samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition was 56.3% § 2.2% and 43.7% § 2.2%, respectively. Rugby, field hockey, and football had D98X Xincompetition vs. out-D9X Xof-D10X Xcompetition distributions different from expected (Fig. 4A, p < 0.05). The proportion of AAF in
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition in team sports was 71.7% § 10.9% and 28.3% § 10.9%, respectively. Only rugby presented a distribution of AAFD10X X in samples in competition vs. out of competition different from what was expected (Fig. 4B, p < 0.05).
390 391 392 393 394 395
4. Discussion The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the number of samples analyzed and the proportion of AAF found in some of the most popular sports through the use of data on samples analyzed by WADA-accredited laboratories between 2003 and 2015. To D102X Xstandardize the data during this period, we used the information provided in the Testing Figures Report of 2003, which grouped all the non-negative results (i.e., AAF) in the same category. The findings in this investigation were as follows: (a) cDycling, 103X X weightlifting, and boxing, which had a proportion of D104X Xapproximately 3.1% § 0.7% for AAF during the examined period, ranked highest among the individual sports for AAF; (b) ice hockey, rugby, and basketball, which had a proportion of approximately 2.1% D105X X § 0.5% for AAF during the examined period, ranked highest among the team sports for AAF; (c) for most sports, the number of anti-doping controls increased yearly during the examined period, but this did not translate into a concomitant increase in the proportion of banned substances found in anti-doping controls; and (d) for individual and team sports combined, the distribution of samples obtained in competition and out of competition was 55% and 45%, respectively, while the distribution of AAF in competition and out of competition was 70% and 30%, respectively. These results indicate that the incidence of AAF was not uniform in all sports disciplines, suggesting that some specific sports might present a greater use of banned substances. The increase in the number of anti-doping controls per year in most individual and team sports did not produce a higher percentage of AAF. In the future, focusing on samples obtained in competition might be more effective for identifying banned substances because most of the AAF were in the samples obtained in competition. This strategy might increase the strength and efficacy of anti-doping policies in those sports with the highest prevalence in the use of banned substances. The results of the current investigation suggest that the number of samples analyzed per year is not the primary reason that there was a greater proportion of AAF in a specific sport. Recent research that included all the doping control test results for 13 years produced similar findings.12 Thus, both analyses provide evidence that anti-doping pressure should be focused on alternative strategies rather than on increasing the number of anti-doping controls. Table 1 indicates that the number of samples does not explain why some sports have higher percentages of AAF; thus, other causes might be responsible for the differences in the frequency of banned substances found among sports. In the current investigation, we analyzed the proportion of samples and AAF obtained in competition and out of competition within each sport, and we normalized D106X X the data to allow for a better comparison among sports. Interestingly, the individual and team sports with the highest incidence
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015
5
447
504
448
505
449
506
450
507
451
508
452
509
453
510
454
511
455
512
456
513
457
514
458
515
459
516
460
517
461
518
462
519
463
520
464
521
465
522
466
523
467
524
468
525
469
526
470
527
471
528
472
529
473
530
474
531
475
532
476
533
477
534
478
535
479
536
480
537
481
538
482
539
483
540
484
541
485
542
486
543
487
544
488
545
489
546
490
547
491
548
492
549
493
550
494
551
495
552
496
553
497 498 499 500 501 502 503
Fig. 1. Number of samples analyzed per year between 2003 and 2015 in individual sports A D1X X and B,D2X aX nd team sports, CD D3X X .4X X
of AAFD107X X had a distribution of in-competition vs. out-of-competition samples comparable to the other sports analyzed. In this respect, the2 sports with the highest proportion of in-competition samples (rowing and football) did not present particularly
high percentages of AAF (Figs. 3 and 4). D108X XIn contrast, while the overall distribution of samples was comparable between incompetition and out-of-competition samples, the percentage of AAF was higher in the samples obtained in competition. All
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
554 555 556 557 558 559 560
ARTICLE IN PRESS 6
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
561
618
562
619
563
620
564
621
565
622
566
623
567
624
568
625
569
626
570
627
571
628
572
629
573
630
574
631
575
632
576
633
577
634
578
635
579
636
580
637
581
638
582
639
583
640
584
641
585
642
586
643
587
644
588
645
589
646
590
647
591
648
592
649
593
650
594
651
595
652
596
653
597
654
598
655
599
656
600
657
601
658
602
659
603
660
604
661
605
662
606
663
607
664
608
665
609
666
610
667 668
611 612
Fig. 2. Percentage of adverse and atypical findings (AAFs) per year between 2003 and 2015 in individual sports A D5X X and B,D6X aX nd team sports, CD D7X X .8X X
614 615 616 617
669 670
613
this information taken together points to the fact that the number of samples or their distribution in competition and out of competition does not explain the differences in the percentages of AAF among sports.
The explanation for the differences in the percentages of banned substances among sport disciplines found in this investigation probably includes other parameters not related to antidoping pressure. For example, athletic success, financial gain,
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
671 672 673 674
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015
7
675
732
676
733
677
734
678
735
679
736
680
737
681
738
682
739
683
740
684
741
685
742
686
743
687
744
688
745
689
746
690
747
691
748
692
749
693
750
694
751
695
752
696
753
697
754
698
755
699
756
700
757
701
758
702
759
703
760
704
761
705
762
706
763
707
764
708
765
709
766
710
767
711
768
712
769
713
770
714
771
715
772
716 717 718 719 720
Fig. 3. A,D D9X X 10X XProportion of samples obtained in competition and out of competition in individual sports and B,D D1X X 12X dX istribution of the AAF in samples obtained in competition and out of competition. The data are mean § standard D13X X deviation for each sport between 2003 and 2015. * The distribution was different from that expected at p < 0.05. AAF = adverse and atypical finding; AQU = Aquatics; ATH = Athletics; BOX = Boxing; CAN = Canoe/kayaking; CYC = Cycling; FEN = Fencing; GYM = Gymnastics; JUD = Judo; ROW= Rowing; SHO = Shooting; SKA = Skating; SKI = Skiing; TAE = Taekwondo; TEN = Tennis; TRI = Triathlon; WEI = Weightlifting; WRE = Wrestling.
723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731
774 775 776 777 778
721 722
773
the assumption that other athletes also use banned substances,23 and the athlete’s ego,24 none of which are equal in all sports, might be behind the diverse sport-specific attitudes and beliefs toward doping misconduct. Although the reasons for the differences in the proportion of AAF among sports are not evident from the current analysis, it seems clear that doping is an uneven phenomenon of variable magnitude depending on the nature of the sports discipline. Interestingly, although the magnitude of the prevalence of doping is much higher when measured with anonymous surveys against doping control
tests, the sports with the highest prevalence and incidence of doping are the ones that have used these 2 types of analyses.7,15,1719 The current analysis underlines the complex and idiosyncratic nature of the use of banned substances in sports,25 but it also suggests that some sports disciplines might be at a higher risk of doping misconduct. The study of the reasons for the differences in the proportion of AAF among sports warrants further investigation. Among individual sports, there is no a clear explanation for the higher proportion of banned substances in cycling,
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788
ARTICLE IN PRESS 8
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
789
846
790
847
791
848
792
849
793
850
794
851
795
852
796
853
797
854
798
855
799
856
800
857
801
858
802
859
803
860
804
861
805
862
806
863
807
864
808
865
809
866
810
867
811
868
812
869
813
870
814
871
815
872
816
873
817
874
818
875
819
876
820
877
821
878
822 823 824 825
Fig. 4. A,D D14X X 15X XProportion of samples obtained in competition and out of competition in team sports and B,D D16X X 17X Xdistribution of the AAF in samples obtained in competition and out of competition. The data are mean § standard deviationD18X X for each sport between 2003 and 2015. * The distribution was different from that expected at p < 0.05. AAF = adverse and atypical finding; BAS = Basketball; FOO = Football; HAN = Handball; HOC = Field Hockey; ICE = Ice Hockey; RUG = Rugby; VOL = Volleyball.
828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845
880 881 882 883
826 827
879
weightlifting, and boxing when compared to the remaining disciplines. From a physiological standpoint, the physical capabilities linked to success in these 3 disciplines are quite different, with uneven involvements of muscle strength, muscle power, and endurance among them. Thus, one might expect that, despite the similarities in the proportions of AAF in these individual sports, the most prevalent types of banned substances found in cycling, weightlifting, and boxing would be different. Although cycling was the sport with the highest incidence of AAF for the period studied, the percentage of banned substances found in the cyclists’ samples clearly declined over time (Fig. 2). It might be worth studying the strategies used to fight against doping in cycling, particularly the ones set in motion by the Union Cycliste Internationale D109X Xand by WADA, along with the recommendations made by the Movement For Credible Cycling. These strategies might be useful in other sports with high percentages of AAF. Regarding team sports, all of them share a common nature in that they require high-intensity actions intermittently
combined with short periods of recovery; thus, success is driven by a reliance on anaerobic and aerobic metabolic pathways. However, the team sports with the highest proportion of AAF (ice hockey, rugby, and basketball) have similar physical demands when compared with the other team sports studiedD10X X. Football was the team sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year and with the highest proportion of samples obtained in competition. However, the percentage of AAF was low, suggesting that the use of banned substances in football is low. Finally, the frequency of AAF was similar in individual and team sports, probably because the factors that predispose athletes to doping are equally present in both individual and team disciplines. Previous research has established3,6 that the most accurate way to estimate the prevalence and incidence of doping in elite sports is to use a combination of different anonymous questionnaires, specifically the survey technique called the D1X X randomized response technique. Other researchers4,26 have recommended using a combination of qualitative and
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959
quantitative measurements—interviews, questionnaires and, ideally, lessD12X X invasive biomedical tests (e.g. based on hair or salivary samples)—to assess prevalence and incidence of doping in sports. Although these 2 multidisciplinary perspectives4,6 are useful for the assessment of attitudes toward doping in research with only a limited number of participants, their application to large populations might be very complex or even unfeasible. Additionally, an athlete’s ability to correctly identify doping misconducts can affect the outcomes of these types of investigations, and those who lie about their doping behaviors D13X X still are highly influential.11 The current analysis does not contain individual information directly obtained from athletes beyond the evidence provided by the analysis of the samples, and thus it precludes, in part, a knowledge and understanding of the motives and attitudes behind doping misconduct. However, our study did provide a robust scrutiny of all the samples analyzed for anti-doping purposes from 2003 to 2015, which strengthens the D14X Xgeneralizability and utility of the results here presented. Given our results, it is safe to conclude that some individual sports, such as cycling, weightlifting, and boxing, and team sports, such as rugby, ice hockey, and basketball, presented a statistically significant higher frequency of banned substances detected in their athletes’ samples, and thus it is reasonable to assume that these sports are ones that present a greater use of prohibited substances. As was mentioned in the Methods section, the AAFD15X X presented in this investigation did not necessarily end in antidoping rule violations. Some of the substances detected might have been used for therapeutic purposes under the TUE protocol, or the AAF might not have resulted in a formal sanction. Since 2013, WADA has published an annual report that relates the number of AAFD16X X to the proportion of anti-doping rule violations. In these reports, the overall proportion of AAF that ended in an anti-doping rule violation was 64% § 1%, with approximately 10% § 2% exemptions due to TUEs. Interestingly, the remaining 26% § 2% of AAF did not end in a sanction or they were still pending of a final decision which might affect the final number of AAF that ends in a sanction. The translation from AAFD17X X to anti-doping rule violations might also depend on the sport discipline. For example, from 2013 to 2015, 85.5% § 4.6% and 84.8% § 1.5% of the AAF found in wrestling and weightlifting, respectively, finally ended in antidoping rule violations, while this proportion was only 23.3% § 14.3% in gymnastics. In team sports, the sport with the highest conversion of AAF into anti-doping rule violations was rugby (69.8% § 5.5%) followed by volleyball (69.3% § 23.7%). Thus, the data presented in this investigation are useful in assessing the use of banned substances in different sports, but the relationship between the number of AAF and the number of anti-doping rule violations among various sports requires further analysis. The current analysis has some limitations that should be considered when drawing conclusions about the use of banned substances in these sports. First, the Testing Figures Reports made public by WADA do not include information about the athlete’s nationality even though this characteristic might
9 14
affect the occurrence of misconduct regarding doping. The reports provided by WADA include information about the number of samples analyzed and the percentage of AAF in each WADA-accredited laboratory. However, this information cannot be extrapolated to infer the nationalities of the athletes whose samples were analyzed in each laboratory or the relationship between the athletes’ nationalities and the prevalence of AAF. By including the athletes’ nationalities in its reports, WADA could help us to understand the nature of doping in various countries, especially after the recent independent investigations into doping practices that implicated Russian athletes, coaches, doctors, and the accredited laboratory based in Moscow.27 Second, WADA’s reports do not include any analyses or information that allows us to differentiate between the occurrence of AAF and the sex of athletes. The sex of athletes might affect the prevalence and incidence of AAF, specifically as they relate to the concentration of hormones such as testosterone and to conditions in which androgens are elevated, such as disorders of sex developmentD18X X.28 The use of sex-specific information might help to identify discrepancies in the occurrence of doping misconduct among male and female athletes, but at present this analysis cannot be inferred from the WADA’s reports. Finally, WADA’s reports only include information on samples analyzed and substances found, but the use of banned substances in sports may be greater than recognized because not all athletes are under anti-doping scrutiny and the methodologies used in the analyses are imperfect. Despite these limitations, the current analysis presents a broad vision of the frequency of AAF in sports.
960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989
5. Conclusion
990
19XD XThe incidence of AAF reported by WADA-accredited laboratories was not uniform in all sports disciplines from 2003 to 2015. While some sports had a proportion of AAF D120X Xof greater than 3%, other disciplines did not even reach 1%. Thus, despite WADA’s proposal of a concerted fight against doping, those who develop anti-doping strategies should consider the differences in the risk of doping among sports. Overall, the number of anti-doping controls has increased yearly in most sports, but this has not translated into a concomitant increase in the proportion of banned substances used in sports, except for cycling. Given the disproportionate distribution of AAF in competition and out of competition, more pressure should be exerted, in general terms, to obtain samples in competition, although this strategy should be designed specifically for each sport in the light of the current data. This information may be valuable to national and international anti-doping D12X Xorganizations in their efforts to improve the policies used to reduce doping practices in sports and to identify specific sports disciplines that have a higher risk of doping misconduct.
991
Acknowledgments The current investigation has been possible thanks to WADA, which makes its statistics from its accredited antidoping laboratories public. Thus, we want to acknowledge the D12X Xlabor of WADA in making its statistics publicly available and
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016
ARTICLE IN PRESS 10 1017 1018
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
in implementing other policies in the fight against doping in sports. This study did not receive any funding.
1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027
AuthorD123X X’s contributions MAN, JMG, MMP, and JDC conceived the idea of the investigation; MAN extracted the data; MAN and JDC performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript; JMG and MMP critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.
1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Supplementary materials Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005.
1036 1037
References
1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058
1. Zhang Z. Establishing an anti-doping internal whistleblower policy in China. J Sport Health Sci 2018;7:337–8. 2. Dvorak J, Saugy M, Pitsiladis YP. Challenges and threats to implementing the fight against doping in sport. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:807–9. 3. Pielke Jr. R. Assessing doping prevalence is possible. So what are we waiting for? Sports Med 2017;48:207–9. 4. Morente-Sanchez J, Zabala M. Doping in sport: a review of elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge. Sports Med 2013;43:395–411. 5. Herzog W. Fairness in Olympic sports: how can we control the increasing complexity of doping use in high performance sports? J Sport Health Sci 2017;6:47. 6. de Hon O, Kuipers H, van Bottenburg M. Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Med 2015;45:57–69. 7. Ulrich R, Pope Jr HG, Cleret L, Petroczi A, Nepusz T, Schaffer J, et al. Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomizedresponse surveys. Sports Med 2017;48:211–9. 8. Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc 2007;4:89–102. 9. Frenger M, Pitsch W, Emrich E. Sport-induced substance use-an empirical study to the extent within a German sports association. PLoS One 2016;11: e0165103. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165103. 10. Petroczi A, Aidman EV, Hussain I, Deshmukh N, Nepusz T, Uvacsek M, et al. Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping. PLoS One 2010;5:e10457. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010457.
11. Schroter H, Studzinski B, Dietz P, Ulrich R, Striegel H, Simon P. A comparison of the Cheater Detection and the unrelated question models: a randomized response survey on physical and doping in recreational. PLoS One 2016;11: e0155765. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155765. 12. Aguilar M, Munoz-Guerra J, Plata MDM, Del Coso J. Thirteen years of the fight against doping in figures. Drug Test Anal 2017;9:866–9. 13. Ferro P, Ventura R, Perez-Ma~na C, Farre M, Segura J. Genetic and protein biomarkers in blood for the improved detection of GH abuse. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2016;128:111–8. 14. Sottas P-E, Robinson N, Fischetto G, Dolle G, Alonso JM, Saugy M. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem 2011;57:762–9. 15. Loraschi A, Galli N, Cosentino M. Dietary supplement and drug use and doping knowledge and attitudes in Italian young elite cyclists. Clin J Sport Med 2014;24:238–44. 16. Morente-Sanchez J, Mateo-March M, Zabala M. Attitudes towards doping and related experience in Spanish national cycling teams according to different Olympic disciplines. PLoS One 2013;8:e70999. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070999. 17. Baume N, Jan N, Emery C, Mandanis B, Schweizer C, Giraud S, et al. Antidoping programme and biological monitoring before and during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:614–22. 18. Alaranta A, Alaranta H, Holmila J, Palmu P, Pietila K, Helenius I. Selfreported attitudes of elite athletes towards doping: differences between type of sport. Int J Sports Med 2006;27:842–6. 19. Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, Tzorbatzoudis H. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2010;32:694–710. 20. Mottram D, Chester N, Atkinson G, Goode D. Athletes’ knowledge and views on OTC medication. Int J Sports Med 2008;29:851–5. 21. World Anti-Doping Agency. Anti-Doping Testing Figures; 2017. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/laboratories/anti-dopingtesting-figures-report. [accessed 01.05.2019]. 22. Boutilier MA, Giovanni LFS, University SH. Individual and team in the Olympics: a question of balance. Int Rev Sociol Sport 1992;27:177–89. 23. Birzniece V. Doping in sport: effects, harm and misconceptions. Intern Med J 2015;45:239–48. 24. Ring C, Kavussanu M. Ego involvement increases doping likelihood. J Sports Sci 2018;36:1757–62. 25. Whitaker L, Backhouse S. Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015. J Sports Sci 2017;35:1607–13. 26. Morente-Sanchez J, Zabala M. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of technical staff towards doping in Spanish football. J Sports Sci 2015;33:1267–75. 27. World Anti-Doping Agency. The Independent Commission Report #1; 2015. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/ wada_independent_commission_report_1_en.pdf. [accessed 05.11.2018]. 28. Clark RV, Wald JA, Swerdloff RS, Wang C, Wu FCW, Bowers LD, et al. Large divergence in testosterone concentrations between men and women: frame of reference for elite athletes in sex-specific competition in sports, a narrative review. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2018.
1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115
1059
1116
1060
1117
1061
1118
1062
1119
1063
1120
1064
1121
1065
1122
1066
1123
1067
1124
1068
1125
1069
1126
1070
1127
1071
1128
1072
1129
1073
1130
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
Journal of Sport and Health Science xxx (2019) xxx-xxx www.jshs.org.cn 1
53
Review
54
2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1
Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015
55
25X XMill XD an Aguilar-Navarro D26X X , D27X XJes us Mu~ noz-Guerra D28X X , D29X XMarıa del Mar Plata D30X X , D31X XJuan Del Coso D32X X *
58
a,b
c
d
a,
a
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Camilo Jos e Cela University, Madrid, 28692, Spain b Faculty of Education, Francisco de Vitoria University, Madrid, 28223, Spain c Department for Doping Control, Spanish Agency for Health Protection in Sport, Madrid, 28016, Spain d Department of Education, Spanish Agency for Health Protection in Sport, Madrid, 28016, Spain
8 9 10 11
Received 21 November 2018; revised 27 February 2019; accepted 2 April 2019 Available online xxx
12
56 57 59 60 61 62 63 64
13
65
14
66
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
67
Abstract
68
Background: Determining the prevalence of doping in sport might be useful for anti-doping authorities to gauge the effectiveness of anti-doping policies implemented to prevent positive attitudes toward doping. Using questionnaires and personal interviews, previous investigations have found that the prevalence of doping might be different among different sports disciplines; however, there is no sport-specific information about the proportion of adverse and atypical findings (AAF) in samples used for doping control. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the differences in the frequency of adverse analytical and atypical findings among sports using the data made available by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Methods: The data included in this investigation were gathered from the Testing Figures Reports made available annually from 2003 to 2015 by the World Anti-Doping Agency. These Testing Figures Reports include information about the number of samples analyzed, the number of AAFs reported, and the most commonly found drugs in the urine and blood samples analyzed. A total of 1,347,213 samples were analyzed from the individual sports selected for this investigation, and 698,371 samples were analyzed for disciplines catalogued as team sports. Results: In individual sports, the highest proportions of AAF were 3.3% § 1.0% in cycling, 3.0% § 0.6% in weightlifting and 2.9% § 0.6% in boxing. In team sports, the highest proportions of AAF were 2.2% § 0.5% in ice hockey, 2.0% § 0.5% in rugby, and 2.0% § 0.5% in basketball. Gymnastics and skating had the lowest proportions at 1.0%) for individual sports, and field hockey, volleyball and football had the lowest proportions for team sports (<1.5%). Conclusion: As suggested by the analysis, the incidence of AAF was not uniform across all sports disciplines, with the different proportions pointing to an uneven use of banned substances depending on the sport. This information might be useful for increasing the strength and efficacy of anti-doping policies in those sports with the highest prevalence in the use of banned substances. 2095-2546/Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
69
Keywords: Anti-doping; Attitude; Banned drugs; Elite athlete; Type of sport
86
70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
35
87
36
88 89
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
1. Introduction Since the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999, there has been a strong anti-doping movement across sports organizations and governmental authorities, with the main objective being to reduce the prevalence and incidence of doping in sports.1 Although several important steps in this direction have been taken in the past 20 years, this objective is far from being fully achieved because at present
47 48 49 50 51 52
Peer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Del Coso).
the use of banned substances by elite athletes from different sports disciplines is a certainty.24 Some flaws in the current anti-doping system, including the low deterrent effect of the punishment established for athletes sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation, the inclusion of substances on the banned list without proper scrutiny of their effects on physical performance, and the imperfections in the Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) protocol, may have contributed to the relatively low efficacy of anti-doping policies.5 Determining the prevalence of doping in sport is important for all the entities involved in sports organizations; however, an assessment of the prevalence and the changes in the incidence of doping is particularly crucial for anti-doping authorities to
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005 Ó 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161
gauge the effectiveness of their anti-doping policies and the utility of the social and economic investment made to prevent positive attitudes toward doping. Even though it is impractical to identify the exact prevalence and incidence of doping in sport, various analyses have shown that intentional doping occurs in 14%57% of the population of competitive athletes.69 Some of these investigations have used surveys based on the D36X Xrandomized response technique, which allows the athlete to maintain anonymity while answering questions about doping practices. However, the accuracy of these survey-based investigations is limited by the necessity for truthfulness,10 objectivity, and the necessity that athletes’ have an accurate knowledge of what is a doping misconduct.11 According to the results of doping control tests, it has been revealed that the percentage of samples containing banned substances has remained relatively stable at approximately D37X X2.0% both before6 and after12 the creation of WADA, a lower proportion than the one found in investigations based on personal input.11 The assessment of the prevalence and incidence of doping in sport using the results of doping tests is an objective and robust method, but it suffers from the limitations of the small detection window that exists for specific prohibited substances,13 the analytical capability of WADA-accredited laboratories at the time of analysis, and an inability to discern the legal use of prohibited substances for therapeutic purposes from the intentional use of banned substances to obtain a competitive advantage. To date, most of the strategies implemented to fight against doping have failed to consider the particularities of each sport discipline in terms of doping misconduct (prevalence and seasonal variations in the use of banned substances, the substances consumed and methods most used to consume them, and so forth). Determining the prevalence of doping practices and recognizing the differing attitudes that exist toward doping in various sports can aid in the management and implementation of plans for doping control tests in each sports discipline. It is likely that the use of anti-doping policies specifically designed to address the characteristics of doping misconduct in each sport can improve the effectiveness of current anti-doping strategies. However, the information needed to understand the differences in the prevalence of and attitudes toward doping among various sports is scarce, making it difficult to draw conclusions about which anti-doping measures to use. A few investigations have assessed the prevalence of doping in one or various sports, but the methods used to assess the prevalence of doping are diverse and hinder an objective comparison among sports. Doping in athletics, as measured by surveys, might be up to 57%.7 In addition, track and field athlete’s nationality might be one of the major factors affecting prevalence of doping in this sport,14 suggesting the existence of contrasting attitudes toward doping between countries. Likewise, the incidence of doping may be high in cycling D38X Xbecause the use of doping agents was admitted by a high proportion of cyclists that D39X Xcompleted a questionnaire about the use of doping agents in the past 3 months.15 However, not all the investigations confirm this high prevalence of doping in cycling.16 In contrast, all the players in the 32 football teams classified for the Brazil 2014 World Cup were tested for
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
doping control out of competition and there was not any case of intentional doping in the more than 1D40X X000 samples analyzed.17 It has also been found18 that offers to use banned substances are received most often by speed and power athletes, followed by endurance athletes, then by participants in sports that require motor skills, and then by participants in team sports. However, athletes rarely admit the use of banned substances despite the ease with which they can obtain doping agents.18 These findings coincide with findings from other investigations that have reported that participants in individual sports were more prone to be involved in doping than participants in team sports.19 Furthermore, athletes D41X Xpracticing individual sports that require motor skills are less likely to be involved in doping practices than athletes practicing D42X X more physically D43X Xoriented individual sports.4 Finally, track and field athletes, cyclists, and weightlifters had a higher knowledge of anti-doping rule violations than their counterparts in other Olympic sports.20 Taken together, previous research suggests that differences exist among various sports in the prevalence of doping and in athletes’ attitudes toward doping. Because data haveD4X X been gathered for only a few sports, an objective comparison of the prevalence/incidence of doping in various sports disciplines has not been possible. Thus, the aim of the present investigation was to D45X Xanalyze the frequency of and atypical findings reported by WADA-accredited laboratories from 2003 to 2015 to assess the differences in the incidence of doping in various sports.
162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189
2. Methods The data included in this investigation were gathered from the Testing Figures Reports made available annually from 2003 to 2015 by WADA. These Testing Figures Reports can be accessed from the WADA website, and they include information about the number of samples analyzed, the number of adverse and atypical findings (AAF) reported, and the most commonly found drugs in the urine and blood samples analyzed.21 The percentage of AAF was calculated for each sport as described D46X X herein. To determine the presence of a prohibited substance or its main metabolites or markers in athletes participating in both Olympic and non-Olympic sports from 2003 to 2015, WADAaccredited laboratories analyzed a total of 3,103,974 samples. The current investigation presents an ad hoc analysis of the samples for 17 individual sports (aD47X Xquatics, aD48X Xthletics, bD49X Xoxing, cD50X Xanoe/ kD51X Xayaking, cD52X Xycling, fD53X Xencing, gDymnastics, 54X X jD5X Xudo, rD56X Xowing, sD57X Xhooting, sD58X Xkiing, sD59X Xkating, tD60X Xaekwondo, tD61X Xennis, tD62X Xriathlon, wD63X Xeightlifting, and wD64X Xrestling) and 7 team sports (bD65X Xasketball, fD6X Xootball, hD67X Xandball, fD68X Xield hD69X Xockey, iD70X Xce hD71X Xockey, rD72X Xugby, and vD73X Xolleyball). All these sports were part of the Olympic programD74X X during the analyzed period. (Information on rD75X Xugby was available only from 2012 to 2015). For this investigation, only complex team sports were labelled as “team sports,”D76X X while other individual disciplines that have collective events (known as simple and aggregated team sports, including athletics, swimming, cycling, rowing, etc)22 remained labelled as individual sports because most of the samples analyzed came from the individual disciplines. The grouping of individual and team sports in the current analysis only responds
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
to the intention of creating a more comprehensible manuscript, D7X Xbecause some individual and team sports share physical, physiological, and sociodemographic characteristics. Because it was impractical to analyze all the sports (D78X X>100) included in the WADA reports, theseD79X X individual and team sports were selected because they accounted for at least 1D80X X000 samples per year in all the years examined. The Testing Figures Reports have evolved from 2003 to 2015 and have presented more information about doping every year. However, we have used the data from 2003 as the basis for the analysis. In the reports from 2003 to 2007, 2 types of non-negative results were merged: (a) adverse analytical findings (when the laboratory detected in the athlete’s sample a substance and/or a marker and/or a metabolite of the substance that was included in the list of prohibited substances) and (b) atypical findings (when the parameters measured by the laboratory showed a discrepancy with the previous results for the same athlete). Notably, the analyses did not include information about D81X XTUE; thus, D82X XAAFD83X X did not necessarily end in anti-doping rule violations. The information on the number of samples obtained in competition and out of competition and the number of AAF have been analyzed using the reports from 2012 to 2015, because this information was not included in the previous reports. Finally, the blood samples collected for the Athlete’s Biological Passport were not included in our analysis because this type of sample had not been obtained during the entire period from 2003 to 2015.
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274
2.1. Statistical analysis The data were electronically extracted from the Testing Figures Reports and entered into a database designed for the purposes of this research. The data were extracted by one author (MAN) using a spreadsheet (Excel 2016, Microsoft Office, WA, USA) and then they were checked for accuracy by another author (JDC). Subsequently, the mean § standard deviationD84X X for each Olympic sport (individual or team) was calculated for span of years investigated (20032015). The normality of each variable was initially analyzed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. A D85X X1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences in the number of samples analyzed and in the frequency of AAF among sports. After a F significant test (inter-groups and intra-groups degrees of freedom), the Bonferroni post hoc analysis was used D86X X to identify differences among individual sports and among team sports in these variables. The differences in the distribution of samples and the percentage of AAF between in-competition and out-of-competition settings were tested with crosstab and x2D87X X tests, including adjusted D8X Xstandardized residuals. Briefly, a sport that had a distribution of samples or percentage of AAF was considered to be statistically different from expected when its distribution of samples/findings in-competition and out-of-competition was D89X Xgreater than or D90X Xless than the critical value of Z (i.e., 1.96). The data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The significance level for all tests was set at p < 0.05.
3
3. Results
276
A total of 1,347,213 samples were analyzed from the individual sports selected for this investigation from 2003 to 2015, with an overall frequency of AAF of 1.6% § 0.9%. In the team sports examined, the number of samples analyzed during this period was 698,371, with the overall frequency of AAF (1.7% § 0.6%) being similar to individual sports. Table 1 depicts the average number of samples analyzed per year in all individual sports (F(16, 204) = 218.1; p(ANOVA) < 0.001). Athletics was the individual sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples being available than the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Cycling ranked second among the second individual sport in the number of samples analyzed per year and had higher values for AAFD91X X than all the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Aquatics and weightlifting also had a higher number of samples analyzed per year than the remaining individuals sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Table 1 contains the number of AAF per sport from 2003 to 2015. In
277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
Table 1 Number of samples analyzed, number and percentage of AAF in individual and team sports between 2003 and 2015 (mean § standard deviationD). 19X X D20X X Sport Individual sports Cycling Weightlifting Boxing Triathlon Wrestling Athletics Judo Skiing Taekwondo Tennis Canoe/kayaking Fencing Aquatics Rowing Shooting Gymnastics Skating Team sports Ice Hockey Rugby Basketball Handball Field hDockey 23X X Volleyball Football
Samples (nD)21X X
AAF (nD)2X X
AAF (%)
18,371 § 4018 7440 § 1491$ 3303 § 892* 3069 § 921* 4136 § 1032* 24,132 § 3516$ 3820 § 752* 4801 § 989* 1579 § 332*,z 3345 § 686* 3559 § 717* 1836 § 187* 12,010 § 1539$ 4082 § 865* 2427 § 469* 2224 § 316* 3496 § 702*
572 § 128 227 § 75 92 § 21 61 § 25 78 § 33 379 § 96 54 § 27 65 § 23 21 § 7 40 § 13 45 § 18 22 § 11 § 44 44 § 19 26 § 26 23 § 10 32 § 18
3.3 § 1.0 3.0 § 0.6 2.9 § 0.6 2.1 § 0.8*,y,z 1.8 § 0.5*,y,z 1.6 § 0.3*,y,z 1.4 § 0.6*,y,z 1.4 § 0.5*,y,z 1.3 § 0.5*,y,z 1.3 § 0.6*,y,z 1.3 § 0.5*,y,z 1.2 § 0.5*,y,z 1.1 § 0.3*,y,z 1.1 § 0.4*,y,z 1.1 § 0.4*,y,z 1.0 § 0.4*,y,z 0.9 § 0.5
4004 § 1187 5555 § 1646 6951 § 2457& 3255 § 720# 1723 § 383x# 4194 § 948# 28,039 § 4143$
89 § 34 115 § 53 147 § 87 53 § 16 25 § 14 55 § 20 352 § 121
2.2 § 0.5 2.0 § 0.5 2.0 § 0.5 1.6 § 0.5 1.4 § 0.6&,x 1.3 § 0.4&,x# 1.2 § 0.3&,x#
* Different from cycling. y Different from weightlifting. z Different from boxing. # Different from basketball. & Different from ice hockey. x Different from rugby. $ Different from all the remaining sports within the same category. D24XAbbreviation: X AAF = adverse and atypical finding.
298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
275
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
ARTICLE IN PRESS 4 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389
absolute values, cycling, athletics, and weightlifting were the sports with the highest number of non-negative results. Table 1 also contains the average § D92X Xstandard deviation in the proportion of AAFD93X X in individual sports, which eliminates the influence of the differences in the number of samples analyzed in each individual sport (F(16, 204) = 24.6; p(ANOVA) < 0.001). Cycling, weightlifting, and boxing were the individual sports with the highest proportion of AAF, with the percentages being greater than the remaining individual sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Aquatics, rowing, shooting, gymnastics, and skating had the lowest proportion of AAF in the years studied, and their values were also lower than the proportions of AAFD94X X found in triathlon and wrestling (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Table 1 presents information on the average number of samples analyzed (F (6, 84) = 262.7; p(ANOVA) < 0.001) in team sports. Football was the team sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples than the remaining team sports (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Basketball ranked second in team sports in the number of samples analyzed per year, with a significantly greater number of samples than volleyball, ice hockey, handball, and field hockey (p < 0.01 in all pairwise comparisons). Football, basketball, and rugby were the team sports with the highest number of AAF. However, ice hockey and rugby were the team sports with the highest proportion of AAF (F (6, 84) = 8.1; p (ANOVA) < 0.001), with higher proportions than field hockey, volleyball, and football (p < 0.05 in all pairwise comparisons). Basketball also had a higher proportion of AAFD95X X than volleyball (p = 0.01) and football (p = 0.01). Fig. 1 presents information about the number of samples analyzed per year in each sport. Overall, all sports tended to have an increase in the number of samples analyzed per year from 2003 to 2015. In addition, most of the sports had the largest number of samples analyzed per year in 2015. Fig. 2 shows the changes in the percentage of AAF per year within each sport. Despite the increase in the number of samples analyzed each year, there was not a clear tendency for a higher prevalence of AAF with time. In fact, some sports, such as cycling, boxing, and triathlon, showed a progressive D96X Xdecrease in the percentage of AAFD97X X from 2003 to 2015. In individual sports, the overall proportion of samples obtained in competition was 53.1% § 3.3%, while the remaining 46.9% § 3.3% were obtained out of competition. Skiing, tennis, rowing, and shooting had unexpected distributions for the samples obtained in competition and out of competition (Fig. 3A, p < 0.05). In individual sports, the proportion of AAF in samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition was 67.8% § 8.7% and 32.2% § 8.7%, respectively. In this case, the distributions for the AAF in completion and of competition were different from those expected in triathlon, canoeing, fencing, rowing and shooting (Fig. 3B, p < 0.05). In team sports, the overall proportion of samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition was 56.3% § 2.2% and 43.7% § 2.2%, respectively. Rugby, field hockey, and football had D98X Xincompetition vs. out-D9X Xof-D10X Xcompetition distributions different from expected (Fig. 4A, p < 0.05). The proportion of AAF in
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
samples obtained in competition vs. out of competition in team sports was 71.7% § 10.9% and 28.3% § 10.9%, respectively. Only rugby presented a distribution of AAFD10X X in samples in competition vs. out of competition different from what was expected (Fig. 4B, p < 0.05).
390 391 392 393 394 395
4. Discussion The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the number of samples analyzed and the proportion of AAF found in some of the most popular sports through the use of data on samples analyzed by WADA-accredited laboratories between 2003 and 2015. To D102X Xstandardize the data during this period, we used the information provided in the Testing Figures Report of 2003, which grouped all the non-negative results (i.e., AAF) in the same category. The findings in this investigation were as follows: (a) cDycling, 103X X weightlifting, and boxing, which had a proportion of D104X Xapproximately 3.1% § 0.7% for AAF during the examined period, ranked highest among the individual sports for AAF; (b) ice hockey, rugby, and basketball, which had a proportion of approximately 2.1% D105X X § 0.5% for AAF during the examined period, ranked highest among the team sports for AAF; (c) for most sports, the number of anti-doping controls increased yearly during the examined period, but this did not translate into a concomitant increase in the proportion of banned substances found in anti-doping controls; and (d) for individual and team sports combined, the distribution of samples obtained in competition and out of competition was 55% and 45%, respectively, while the distribution of AAF in competition and out of competition was 70% and 30%, respectively. These results indicate that the incidence of AAF was not uniform in all sports disciplines, suggesting that some specific sports might present a greater use of banned substances. The increase in the number of anti-doping controls per year in most individual and team sports did not produce a higher percentage of AAF. In the future, focusing on samples obtained in competition might be more effective for identifying banned substances because most of the AAF were in the samples obtained in competition. This strategy might increase the strength and efficacy of anti-doping policies in those sports with the highest prevalence in the use of banned substances. The results of the current investigation suggest that the number of samples analyzed per year is not the primary reason that there was a greater proportion of AAF in a specific sport. Recent research that included all the doping control test results for 13 years produced similar findings.12 Thus, both analyses provide evidence that anti-doping pressure should be focused on alternative strategies rather than on increasing the number of anti-doping controls. Table 1 indicates that the number of samples does not explain why some sports have higher percentages of AAF; thus, other causes might be responsible for the differences in the frequency of banned substances found among sports. In the current investigation, we analyzed the proportion of samples and AAF obtained in competition and out of competition within each sport, and we normalized D106X X the data to allow for a better comparison among sports. Interestingly, the individual and team sports with the highest incidence
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015
5
447
504
448
505
449
506
450
507
451
508
452
509
453
510
454
511
455
512
456
513
457
514
458
515
459
516
460
517
461
518
462
519
463
520
464
521
465
522
466
523
467
524
468
525
469
526
470
527
471
528
472
529
473
530
474
531
475
532
476
533
477
534
478
535
479
536
480
537
481
538
482
539
483
540
484
541
485
542
486
543
487
544
488
545
489
546
490
547
491
548
492
549
493
550
494
551
495
552
496
553
497 498 499 500 501 502 503
Fig. 1. Number of samples analyzed per year between 2003 and 2015 in individual sports A D1X X and B,D2X aX nd team sports, CD D3X X .4X X
of AAFD107X X had a distribution of in-competition vs. out-of-competition samples comparable to the other sports analyzed. In this respect, the2 sports with the highest proportion of in-competition samples (rowing and football) did not present particularly
high percentages of AAF (Figs. 3 and 4). D108X XIn contrast, while the overall distribution of samples was comparable between incompetition and out-of-competition samples, the percentage of AAF was higher in the samples obtained in competition. All
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
554 555 556 557 558 559 560
ARTICLE IN PRESS 6
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
561
618
562
619
563
620
564
621
565
622
566
623
567
624
568
625
569
626
570
627
571
628
572
629
573
630
574
631
575
632
576
633
577
634
578
635
579
636
580
637
581
638
582
639
583
640
584
641
585
642
586
643
587
644
588
645
589
646
590
647
591
648
592
649
593
650
594
651
595
652
596
653
597
654
598
655
599
656
600
657
601
658
602
659
603
660
604
661
605
662
606
663
607
664
608
665
609
666
610
667 668
611 612
Fig. 2. Percentage of adverse and atypical findings (AAFs) per year between 2003 and 2015 in individual sports A D5X X and B,D6X aX nd team sports, CD D7X X .8X X
614 615 616 617
669 670
613
this information taken together points to the fact that the number of samples or their distribution in competition and out of competition does not explain the differences in the percentages of AAF among sports.
The explanation for the differences in the percentages of banned substances among sport disciplines found in this investigation probably includes other parameters not related to antidoping pressure. For example, athletic success, financial gain,
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
671 672 673 674
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015
7
675
732
676
733
677
734
678
735
679
736
680
737
681
738
682
739
683
740
684
741
685
742
686
743
687
744
688
745
689
746
690
747
691
748
692
749
693
750
694
751
695
752
696
753
697
754
698
755
699
756
700
757
701
758
702
759
703
760
704
761
705
762
706
763
707
764
708
765
709
766
710
767
711
768
712
769
713
770
714
771
715
772
716 717 718 719 720
Fig. 3. A,D D9X X 10X XProportion of samples obtained in competition and out of competition in individual sports and B,D D1X X 12X dX istribution of the AAF in samples obtained in competition and out of competition. The data are mean § standard D13X X deviation for each sport between 2003 and 2015. * The distribution was different from that expected at p < 0.05. AAF = adverse and atypical finding; AQU = Aquatics; ATH = Athletics; BOX = Boxing; CAN = Canoe/kayaking; CYC = Cycling; FEN = Fencing; GYM = Gymnastics; JUD = Judo; ROW= Rowing; SHO = Shooting; SKA = Skating; SKI = Skiing; TAE = Taekwondo; TEN = Tennis; TRI = Triathlon; WEI = Weightlifting; WRE = Wrestling.
723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731
774 775 776 777 778
721 722
773
the assumption that other athletes also use banned substances,23 and the athlete’s ego,24 none of which are equal in all sports, might be behind the diverse sport-specific attitudes and beliefs toward doping misconduct. Although the reasons for the differences in the proportion of AAF among sports are not evident from the current analysis, it seems clear that doping is an uneven phenomenon of variable magnitude depending on the nature of the sports discipline. Interestingly, although the magnitude of the prevalence of doping is much higher when measured with anonymous surveys against doping control
tests, the sports with the highest prevalence and incidence of doping are the ones that have used these 2 types of analyses.7,15,1719 The current analysis underlines the complex and idiosyncratic nature of the use of banned substances in sports,25 but it also suggests that some sports disciplines might be at a higher risk of doping misconduct. The study of the reasons for the differences in the proportion of AAF among sports warrants further investigation. Among individual sports, there is no a clear explanation for the higher proportion of banned substances in cycling,
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788
ARTICLE IN PRESS 8
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
789
846
790
847
791
848
792
849
793
850
794
851
795
852
796
853
797
854
798
855
799
856
800
857
801
858
802
859
803
860
804
861
805
862
806
863
807
864
808
865
809
866
810
867
811
868
812
869
813
870
814
871
815
872
816
873
817
874
818
875
819
876
820
877
821
878
822 823 824 825
Fig. 4. A,D D14X X 15X XProportion of samples obtained in competition and out of competition in team sports and B,D D16X X 17X Xdistribution of the AAF in samples obtained in competition and out of competition. The data are mean § standard deviationD18X X for each sport between 2003 and 2015. * The distribution was different from that expected at p < 0.05. AAF = adverse and atypical finding; BAS = Basketball; FOO = Football; HAN = Handball; HOC = Field Hockey; ICE = Ice Hockey; RUG = Rugby; VOL = Volleyball.
828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845
880 881 882 883
826 827
879
weightlifting, and boxing when compared to the remaining disciplines. From a physiological standpoint, the physical capabilities linked to success in these 3 disciplines are quite different, with uneven involvements of muscle strength, muscle power, and endurance among them. Thus, one might expect that, despite the similarities in the proportions of AAF in these individual sports, the most prevalent types of banned substances found in cycling, weightlifting, and boxing would be different. Although cycling was the sport with the highest incidence of AAF for the period studied, the percentage of banned substances found in the cyclists’ samples clearly declined over time (Fig. 2). It might be worth studying the strategies used to fight against doping in cycling, particularly the ones set in motion by the Union Cycliste Internationale D109X Xand by WADA, along with the recommendations made by the Movement For Credible Cycling. These strategies might be useful in other sports with high percentages of AAF. Regarding team sports, all of them share a common nature in that they require high-intensity actions intermittently
combined with short periods of recovery; thus, success is driven by a reliance on anaerobic and aerobic metabolic pathways. However, the team sports with the highest proportion of AAF (ice hockey, rugby, and basketball) have similar physical demands when compared with the other team sports studiedD10X X. Football was the team sport with the highest number of samples analyzed per year and with the highest proportion of samples obtained in competition. However, the percentage of AAF was low, suggesting that the use of banned substances in football is low. Finally, the frequency of AAF was similar in individual and team sports, probably because the factors that predispose athletes to doping are equally present in both individual and team disciplines. Previous research has established3,6 that the most accurate way to estimate the prevalence and incidence of doping in elite sports is to use a combination of different anonymous questionnaires, specifically the survey technique called the D1X X randomized response technique. Other researchers4,26 have recommended using a combination of qualitative and
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902
ARTICLE IN PRESS Analysis of Doping Control Tests from 2003 to 2015 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959
quantitative measurements—interviews, questionnaires and, ideally, lessD12X X invasive biomedical tests (e.g. based on hair or salivary samples)—to assess prevalence and incidence of doping in sports. Although these 2 multidisciplinary perspectives4,6 are useful for the assessment of attitudes toward doping in research with only a limited number of participants, their application to large populations might be very complex or even unfeasible. Additionally, an athlete’s ability to correctly identify doping misconducts can affect the outcomes of these types of investigations, and those who lie about their doping behaviors D13X X still are highly influential.11 The current analysis does not contain individual information directly obtained from athletes beyond the evidence provided by the analysis of the samples, and thus it precludes, in part, a knowledge and understanding of the motives and attitudes behind doping misconduct. However, our study did provide a robust scrutiny of all the samples analyzed for anti-doping purposes from 2003 to 2015, which strengthens the D14X Xgeneralizability and utility of the results here presented. Given our results, it is safe to conclude that some individual sports, such as cycling, weightlifting, and boxing, and team sports, such as rugby, ice hockey, and basketball, presented a statistically significant higher frequency of banned substances detected in their athletes’ samples, and thus it is reasonable to assume that these sports are ones that present a greater use of prohibited substances. As was mentioned in the Methods section, the AAFD15X X presented in this investigation did not necessarily end in antidoping rule violations. Some of the substances detected might have been used for therapeutic purposes under the TUE protocol, or the AAF might not have resulted in a formal sanction. Since 2013, WADA has published an annual report that relates the number of AAFD16X X to the proportion of anti-doping rule violations. In these reports, the overall proportion of AAF that ended in an anti-doping rule violation was 64% § 1%, with approximately 10% § 2% exemptions due to TUEs. Interestingly, the remaining 26% § 2% of AAF did not end in a sanction or they were still pending of a final decision which might affect the final number of AAF that ends in a sanction. The translation from AAFD17X X to anti-doping rule violations might also depend on the sport discipline. For example, from 2013 to 2015, 85.5% § 4.6% and 84.8% § 1.5% of the AAF found in wrestling and weightlifting, respectively, finally ended in antidoping rule violations, while this proportion was only 23.3% § 14.3% in gymnastics. In team sports, the sport with the highest conversion of AAF into anti-doping rule violations was rugby (69.8% § 5.5%) followed by volleyball (69.3% § 23.7%). Thus, the data presented in this investigation are useful in assessing the use of banned substances in different sports, but the relationship between the number of AAF and the number of anti-doping rule violations among various sports requires further analysis. The current analysis has some limitations that should be considered when drawing conclusions about the use of banned substances in these sports. First, the Testing Figures Reports made public by WADA do not include information about the athlete’s nationality even though this characteristic might
9 14
affect the occurrence of misconduct regarding doping. The reports provided by WADA include information about the number of samples analyzed and the percentage of AAF in each WADA-accredited laboratory. However, this information cannot be extrapolated to infer the nationalities of the athletes whose samples were analyzed in each laboratory or the relationship between the athletes’ nationalities and the prevalence of AAF. By including the athletes’ nationalities in its reports, WADA could help us to understand the nature of doping in various countries, especially after the recent independent investigations into doping practices that implicated Russian athletes, coaches, doctors, and the accredited laboratory based in Moscow.27 Second, WADA’s reports do not include any analyses or information that allows us to differentiate between the occurrence of AAF and the sex of athletes. The sex of athletes might affect the prevalence and incidence of AAF, specifically as they relate to the concentration of hormones such as testosterone and to conditions in which androgens are elevated, such as disorders of sex developmentD18X X.28 The use of sex-specific information might help to identify discrepancies in the occurrence of doping misconduct among male and female athletes, but at present this analysis cannot be inferred from the WADA’s reports. Finally, WADA’s reports only include information on samples analyzed and substances found, but the use of banned substances in sports may be greater than recognized because not all athletes are under anti-doping scrutiny and the methodologies used in the analyses are imperfect. Despite these limitations, the current analysis presents a broad vision of the frequency of AAF in sports.
960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989
5. Conclusion
990
19XD XThe incidence of AAF reported by WADA-accredited laboratories was not uniform in all sports disciplines from 2003 to 2015. While some sports had a proportion of AAF D120X Xof greater than 3%, other disciplines did not even reach 1%. Thus, despite WADA’s proposal of a concerted fight against doping, those who develop anti-doping strategies should consider the differences in the risk of doping among sports. Overall, the number of anti-doping controls has increased yearly in most sports, but this has not translated into a concomitant increase in the proportion of banned substances used in sports, except for cycling. Given the disproportionate distribution of AAF in competition and out of competition, more pressure should be exerted, in general terms, to obtain samples in competition, although this strategy should be designed specifically for each sport in the light of the current data. This information may be valuable to national and international anti-doping D12X Xorganizations in their efforts to improve the policies used to reduce doping practices in sports and to identify specific sports disciplines that have a higher risk of doping misconduct.
991
Acknowledgments The current investigation has been possible thanks to WADA, which makes its statistics from its accredited antidoping laboratories public. Thus, we want to acknowledge the D12X Xlabor of WADA in making its statistics publicly available and
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005
992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016
ARTICLE IN PRESS 10 1017 1018
M. Aguilar-Navarro et al.
in implementing other policies in the fight against doping in sports. This study did not receive any funding.
1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027
AuthorD123X X’s contributions MAN, JMG, MMP, and JDC conceived the idea of the investigation; MAN extracted the data; MAN and JDC performed the statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript; JMG and MMP critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.
1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Supplementary materials Supplementary material associated with this article can be found in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005.
1036 1037
References
1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058
1. Zhang Z. Establishing an anti-doping internal whistleblower policy in China. J Sport Health Sci 2018;7:337–8. 2. Dvorak J, Saugy M, Pitsiladis YP. Challenges and threats to implementing the fight against doping in sport. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:807–9. 3. Pielke Jr. R. Assessing doping prevalence is possible. So what are we waiting for? Sports Med 2017;48:207–9. 4. Morente-Sanchez J, Zabala M. Doping in sport: a review of elite athletes’ attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge. Sports Med 2013;43:395–411. 5. Herzog W. Fairness in Olympic sports: how can we control the increasing complexity of doping use in high performance sports? J Sport Health Sci 2017;6:47. 6. de Hon O, Kuipers H, van Bottenburg M. Prevalence of doping use in elite sports: a review of numbers and methods. Sports Med 2015;45:57–69. 7. Ulrich R, Pope Jr HG, Cleret L, Petroczi A, Nepusz T, Schaffer J, et al. Doping in two elite athletics competitions assessed by randomizedresponse surveys. Sports Med 2017;48:211–9. 8. Pitsch W, Emrich E, Klein M. Doping in elite sports in Germany: results of a www survey. Eur J Sport Soc 2007;4:89–102. 9. Frenger M, Pitsch W, Emrich E. Sport-induced substance use-an empirical study to the extent within a German sports association. PLoS One 2016;11: e0165103. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165103. 10. Petroczi A, Aidman EV, Hussain I, Deshmukh N, Nepusz T, Uvacsek M, et al. Virtue or pretense? Looking behind self-declared innocence in doping. PLoS One 2010;5:e10457. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010457.
11. Schroter H, Studzinski B, Dietz P, Ulrich R, Striegel H, Simon P. A comparison of the Cheater Detection and the unrelated question models: a randomized response survey on physical and doping in recreational. PLoS One 2016;11: e0155765. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155765. 12. Aguilar M, Munoz-Guerra J, Plata MDM, Del Coso J. Thirteen years of the fight against doping in figures. Drug Test Anal 2017;9:866–9. 13. Ferro P, Ventura R, Perez-Ma~na C, Farre M, Segura J. Genetic and protein biomarkers in blood for the improved detection of GH abuse. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2016;128:111–8. 14. Sottas P-E, Robinson N, Fischetto G, Dolle G, Alonso JM, Saugy M. Prevalence of blood doping in samples collected from elite track and field athletes. Clin Chem 2011;57:762–9. 15. Loraschi A, Galli N, Cosentino M. Dietary supplement and drug use and doping knowledge and attitudes in Italian young elite cyclists. Clin J Sport Med 2014;24:238–44. 16. Morente-Sanchez J, Mateo-March M, Zabala M. Attitudes towards doping and related experience in Spanish national cycling teams according to different Olympic disciplines. PLoS One 2013;8:e70999. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070999. 17. Baume N, Jan N, Emery C, Mandanis B, Schweizer C, Giraud S, et al. Antidoping programme and biological monitoring before and during the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:614–22. 18. Alaranta A, Alaranta H, Holmila J, Palmu P, Pietila K, Helenius I. Selfreported attitudes of elite athletes towards doping: differences between type of sport. Int J Sports Med 2006;27:842–6. 19. Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Rodafinos A, Tzorbatzoudis H. Predictors of doping intentions in elite-level athletes: a social cognition approach. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2010;32:694–710. 20. Mottram D, Chester N, Atkinson G, Goode D. Athletes’ knowledge and views on OTC medication. Int J Sports Med 2008;29:851–5. 21. World Anti-Doping Agency. Anti-Doping Testing Figures; 2017. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/laboratories/anti-dopingtesting-figures-report. [accessed 01.05.2019]. 22. Boutilier MA, Giovanni LFS, University SH. Individual and team in the Olympics: a question of balance. Int Rev Sociol Sport 1992;27:177–89. 23. Birzniece V. Doping in sport: effects, harm and misconceptions. Intern Med J 2015;45:239–48. 24. Ring C, Kavussanu M. Ego involvement increases doping likelihood. J Sports Sci 2018;36:1757–62. 25. Whitaker L, Backhouse S. Doping in sport: an analysis of sanctioned UK rugby union players between 2009 and 2015. J Sports Sci 2017;35:1607–13. 26. Morente-Sanchez J, Zabala M. Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of technical staff towards doping in Spanish football. J Sports Sci 2015;33:1267–75. 27. World Anti-Doping Agency. The Independent Commission Report #1; 2015. Available at: https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/ wada_independent_commission_report_1_en.pdf. [accessed 05.11.2018]. 28. Clark RV, Wald JA, Swerdloff RS, Wang C, Wu FCW, Bowers LD, et al. Large divergence in testosterone concentrations between men and women: frame of reference for elite athletes in sex-specific competition in sports, a narrative review. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2018.
1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115
1059
1116
1060
1117
1061
1118
1062
1119
1063
1120
1064
1121
1065
1122
1066
1123
1067
1124
1068
1125
1069
1126
1070
1127
1071
1128
1072
1129
1073
1130
Please cite this article as: Millan Aguilar-Navarro et al., Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015, Journal of Sport and Health Science (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.07.005